Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.

What I look for is if a person shows heavy signs of grouping people together mentally, and basing things off of that (Aristocratic), or if a person just sees a lot of individuals more or less (Democratic).

This one sticks out like all hell to me - there's a dude I know who I nailed down as "Irrational Aristocratic Extratim", and it took me ages to get him as a Ti-SLE; I couldn't tell much with the P functions at first, he seemed to exhibit more than I did, but that doesn't exactly say very much

I'm currently on a Rational Aristocratic Extratim who I'm pretty sure is an Fe-EIE; I'll nail it down right now for him actually, he may give off Delta vibes but our Ts don't match at all, and he was blowing all over the place... his whole grouping of "women" as some sort of separate, alien species bewildered me and grossed me out, especially due to the frequency of it, and how much weight he placed on it...

And hell, I almost forgot until Ashton brought it up - I see Positivist/Negativist a hell of a lot too! Lots of the time, it'll be the very first one that I find; lots of those times, it'll be the only one that I find...

I use temperament and traits I know are peculiar to particular types, like the SLE's piercing gaze of judgement, or an IEEs enthusiasm about "looking behind" people.

Key words and themes are another big thing. I really love http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml for that, even though some of the vocab seems only applicable to Russian (e.g. most western Si dominants don't use plant and animal analogies so much). Ne dominants love to talk about "interesting" and often present the idea that they can see something hidden underneath the surface of people or ideas ("seems like <not immediately obvious potential>), Fe dominants are very warm and personable, etc.

Role function through interview is another good method. Asking people for five key words about themselves usually yields one adjective stereotypically associated with their Role function. ESEs often describe themselves as efficient, Ti dominants as friendly or polite, etc.

Like you, I think Quadra is a good one. What's of interest to me is that, even though we're both "Splat!" thinkers due to a dialectical-algorithmic thinking form, you don't use quite the same empirical Splats! as I do, instead opting for a logical approach. This could be F/T in action, or it could be experience.

The member who I inherited most of my typing style from is thehotelambush, and AFAIA he uses basically the same approach of "wait and see for something peculiar to a given type".

Quadra values and IM placement analysis, temperament, DCNH subtype. I pointedly ignore type commonality as a criterion (*looks at Cat King*), as it is ripe ground for fallacious typings; given that the immense variability inherent to human personality (as well as lesser influences, such as the unconscious pull of the id block) means not all people of the same type are gonna act the same.

What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

Your method seems quite thorough. I'm not a fan of VI personally but I accept someone skilled in it could get quite accurate. That aside its maybe a little on the analytical side for typing on the fly. Is there a method you use when observing behavior?

Originally Posted by Aleksei

Quadra values and IM placement analysis, temperament, DCNH subtype. I pointedly ignore type commonality as a criterion (*looks at Cat King*), as it is ripe ground for fallacious typings; given that the immense variability inherent to human personality (as well as lesser influences, such as the unconscious pull of the id block) means not all people of the same type are gonna act the same.

You consider DCNH subtype in your initial typing?

Originally Posted by Cat King Cole

Woof, I think the empirical approach of "That person just did something that every other person of that type does!" is the least headache-inducing typing method for dumbass SFs like us
Filatova's photos and the socionics.us gallery are both good, though the former has far less mistyped people.

It's not a bad starting point providing you don't place too much weight on it, in typing I find everything needs to fit into place. Just tonight I finally had that nice confirmation moment on my friends type (ESI), I typed him that weeks ago but I was only sure tonight because of his ignoring function of all things. Basically one of the things I've noticed about him and he noticed about himself is that he doesn't like socialising (Fe style) yet he does it effortlessly when he has to.

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks . So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

Yup, but secondary to IM analysis. It's exceedingly rare for DCNH to alter my impression of a person's core type.

What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

Functions. All of the extra fluff seems to feed my biases and makes the typing process unnecessarily tedious as you attempt to fit their human characteristics into all these different values and dichotomies.

But you really can't type based on functions given the current state of function descriptions. They're horrible and tainted with the bias of their authors, each one containing a different set of emotionally charged adjectives to describe a type/function, and their tendency towards analogy and example show how weak their theoretical foundation really is. So what I've done is reject them outright and recreate them using the basic concepts of introversion/extroversion =subjectivity-internal/objectivity-external applied to logic/ethics/sensing/intuition. Typing has not necessarily become easier, but it has become more valid imo.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Alpha=easy going social types, Beta= passionate social types Delta= Easy going serious types, Gamma=Passionate serious types. (This is very rough, my vibe is actually a bit more detailed but it wasn't translating well to text.)

If it isn't obvious consider their quadra more closely

The quadras are all very different from one another so I find it is a good place to start, as I only need to consider a small subset of socionics theory. As I tend to type people based on my social interaction with them I consider the following things.

Do they prefer large groups or small groups? (can be misleading)

Do they go with the flow of the group or do they try to steer the group?

Are the often animated/passionate?

Are they competitive?

Do they have strong opinions about people? If so are they likely to express these opinions?

Do they prefer practical discussions or "fun" discussions?
etc...(there's more I was getting bored)

I pretty much use the same criteria, except I guess a better description of the "vibe" I get from Se-valuing quadras is ambitious rather than strictly passionate. Obviously, the whole thing is subjective as hell...

I also try to sort out what their default modes of social interaction are, e.g. if there is a large group atmosphere, do they usually initiate a break-off small group?

Originally Posted by moredhel

If I know them well enough I would next choose their romance type.

Once I have decided on a quadra I decide within the context of their quadra are they introverted or extroverted.

If I couldn't figured out their romance type I will decide if they are more ethical or logical.

This should leave me with 1 type.

Lastly I consider if the social roles and cognitive function placement fit.

This is where my approach diverges slightly. Depending on the individual, different things strike me, but usually some combination of these:

Club - usually quite obvious, but sometimes unclear with well-balanced people with diverse interests

Hidden agenda/PoLR - I know a lot of people find it weird of me to put such heavy emphasis on HA, but it's one of those things that's really easy for me to see. It's quite easy for me to tell mirrors apart this way - I find awkward, overenthusiastic use (HA) vs. wanting someone else to deal with it (DS) easier to differentiate than strong, unconscious, inflexible use (base) vs. strong, more conscious, more flexible use (creative). Once i suspect a HA, I'll look for the PoLR, which is usually also obvious.

Similarities in thinking style to people whose types I'm pretty confident of - some types I'm more used to than others. ILEs and IEIs are the most obvious to me. This includes a bit of VI as well.

If yes it should be a puzzle piece moment like "yes they are defiantly this type". If it's a maybe I would place a tentative type and observe them bit more or consider close alternatives. If it's no I will revise the previous steps and consider where I may of made an incorrect assumption or observation.

My approach exactly. Process of elimination, narrowing down of types, continually looking for more evidence with which to support/revise my typing, until one type is clearly the right one.

Last edited by octo; 07-20-2011 at 03:30 AM.

Originally Posted by Agee The Great

Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

VI -because this is a static impression and I'm a static valuer/type, this is very easy for me to do whereas you would probably need to watch and observe a person's actions for a while in order to gather all the intel on them LOL

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

Functional analysis -here I look at which functions are in which position in the person's psychic block; most is using Jung's method of typing.

Relationship observation -Here I observe who they commonly interact with from the people who's types I am certain of and who they misunderstand, who they ignore, who they are attracted and repulsed by. I am an Fi type, so this is easy for me to do and because it is a static image. I also look at the person's mood here. Si types, especially ISTp tend to make value judgement based on who they favor or not and on top of that they can be very reactive in an irrational shortly thought out way so they are easy to spot.

Quadra Values -certain expressed language and style is particular to each quadra and members share those values

lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

BTW I like your method .

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

BTW I like your method .

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

That said, it is an easy one to observe but use with caution .

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late?

Optimism was an efficient generalization. What I meant was I word things in a positivist way probably greater than half the time even though I tend to think in a "there's not enough time" negativist kind of way.
I attribute it to being quite laid back and optimistic and making a conscious effort not to stress other people out.
So while Negativist would be accurate for me I would be very surprised if someone could accurately type me using that axis.

As far as my timing i'm the kind of LSE who's late to places I don't want to be (work) and early to places I'm looking forward to (birthdays), though I've had to teach myself the concept of fashionably late as I was always arriving well before everyone else . I'm also tend to be late when getting there on time requires getting up early .

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late?

Optimism was an efficient generalization. What I meant was I word things in a positivist way probably greater than half the time even though I tend to think in a "there's not enough time" negativist kind of way.
I attribute it to being quite laid back and optimistic and making a conscious effort not to stress other people out.
So while Negativist would be accurate for me I would be very surprised if someone could accurately type me using that axis.

As far as my timing i'm the kind of LSE who's late to places I don't want to be (work) and early to places I'm looking forward to (birthdays), though I've had to teach myself the concept of fashionably late as I was always arriving well before everyone else . I'm also tend to be late when getting there on time requires getting up early .

I go by functions and temperament most often, especially the former. VI has it's place but I wouldn't type someone based on it, it's more like a vague indication
IMHO if one is going by the classical understanding of the information element descriptions (Model A) it's the most helpful way of seeing a type outside of the personality stereotypes that may be associated with them and their quadras. They explain the basics of the subconscious without overtly boxing every tidbit in

Other methods such a Renin, subtypes, and many of the user created systems may or may not have their place in being realistically applicable, and I've dabbled in some with half-seriousness, but I feel all in all that they're far too categorical and for me to latch on to so I don't place a lot of confidence in them.
They, essentially, are meant to explain humanity into precise, systematic, categories that are meant to label the complexities in humans that are too complex to be labeled

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks . So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

*hemhem*

The sort of things I refer to as "quirks" are more like the tendency XEIs have toward being kind of "on or off", since that's something unique to Fe creatives. They'll tend to always default back to an unexpressive state between moulding their faces like so much incredibly silly putty.

I go by functions and temperament most often, especially the former. VI has it's place but I wouldn't type someone based on it, it's more like a vague indication
IMHO if one is going by the classical understanding of the information element descriptions (Model A) it's the most helpful way of seeing a type outside of the personality stereotypes that may be associated with them and their quadras. They explain the basics of the subconscious without overtly boxing every tidbit in

Other methods such a Renin, subtypes, and many of the user created systems may or may not have their place in being realistically applicable, and I've dabbled in some with half-seriousness, but I feel all in all that they're far too categorical and for me to latch on to so I don't place a lot of confidence in them.
They, essentially, are meant to explain humanity into precise, systematic, categories that are meant to label the complexities in humans that are too complex to be labeled

I very much agree with you. I'm happy accepting that two people of the same type aren't going to be the same person, trying to explain this in more detail is just unnecessary in terms of practical socionics. I'm happy pointing to the environment and shrugging.

I like quadras for speed and process of elimination and the "potential" behavior descriptions for functions are nice if they all match.
But yes a bit of your own matching of functions to information elements can be where that confirmation moment comes from.

Matching functions to information elements as a starting point can lead me astray though as I find the quadra behavior to be more distinct than individual function placement.

Originally Posted by Cat King Cole

Originally Posted by moredhel

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks . So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

*hemhem*

Lol if it makes you feel better I was primarily referring to my ex girlfriend.

What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

Lots of different methods; they all get kind of jumbled in my head, though, when I try to utilize them to type RL people. I look for clues about...

Temperament

Club

Merry/Serious

Relationships where I am positive of at least one typing, to give me clues about the other person's possible type/quadrant.

Functions, particularly Bold functions as these are easier to notice. And then with further observation, try to place these functions into the Model where they seem to make the most sense.

VI. I only use this tool, however, to identify when someone I meet seems to resemble (in looks, words, voice, physical attitude) someone whom I have already confidently typed. And then, I only really allow myself to narrow it down to a Club; if I go any further in my VI attempts, I hardly take the typing seriously without other methods to back it up.

I very much agree with you. I'm happy accepting that two people of the same type aren't going to be the same person, trying to explain this in more detail is just unnecessary in terms of practical socionics. I'm happy pointing to the environment and shrugging.

I like quadras for speed and process of elimination and the "potential" behavior descriptions for functions are nice if they all match.
But yes a bit of your own matching of functions to information elements can be where that confirmation moment comes from.

Matching functions to information elements as a starting point can lead me astray though as I find the quadra behavior to be more distinct than individual function placement.

Yeah I think quadra typing works but unless there's a decent understanding on how the information elements work to create a quadra identity it can be misleading.
For instance, I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general. While the IE's valued in Beta can manifest themselves to create these sorts of behaviors I don't think they should be used as a type of guideline for what Fe, Ni, Se, Ti valuing equates to.
The same could be said about the other 3 quadras

That's not to say that you apply quadra typings like this, but there are people who do

I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental .

Generally I have an easier time of picking quadrants (almost without a doubt) based on social interaction. I don't think it's quite as reliable 1on1 or off a questionnaire where the same answers could fit types across quadra. I haven't had to do many of these but so far I agree information elements are the way to go

I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental .

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental .

He is so secretly judgmental! Actually not even secretly

I'm an Fi valuer i'm aloud to judge hehe but now my judgments don't affect my opinion of you guys

, I have to say VI gets a lot of attention on these forums I might look into it a little more. I presume it's got more to do with expressions, posture, gestures etc. than facial structure and physical stature?

, I have to say VI gets a lot of attention on these forums I might look into it a little more. I presume it's got more to do with expressions, posture, gestures etc. than facial structure and physical stature?

Yes, definitely. Although I don't think you can create a manual for VI - it's something that is born out of getting to know a large number of people for each type.

Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.

Yeah.

As you may already know....
A lot of people especially at first are ignorant of how much they know and don't know, and often have baggage or certain things that "they know are representative of a type' that are not actually. So it's a process of continuously challenging those assumptions.

I don't think there will ever be much uniformity in process (or even results), at least on this forum. There are too many variations of understanding and assertiveness about opinions, and I think it's one of the biggest hurdles to getting into things.

So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?

How someone approaches socionics and typing people seems related to their ability to grasp other models in social sciences, and their ability (or experience) in weeding through various pieces of information, evidence or actual knowledge of a theory.

Different people will have shortcomings along those lines that are often based on their type. What people put faith in and why they put faith in that reasoning is often related to their type, in certain ways... in how they put a value on some things. Some very generalized examples: sometimes "F types" will base their feelings about a person based on a "feeling" they have about them, and trust their feelings about them, in regard to how they feel about certain types, more so than 'what socionics actually says'. That's obviously also possible for any person or type to do. Sometimes T types will over-focus on a piece of data and not understand how it actually relates to the person because they don't understand the person or their relationship to them very well.

A methodology for measuring sociotype

True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.

I have a few ideas. IMO the only real way is a more form of information analysis that does not rely on questionnaires and self-reporting but based on choices(information preference) analysis.

More akin to Google +1, Facebook Like and rating movies. I was engaged in the Netflix prize prior to doing socionics seriously and started studying socionics again to see if it could help my analytics, one of the most common methods and at the core of all analysis like this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singula..._decomposition which generates 2^x categories of indicating and contraindicating values(significant choices will fall into one or the other category). Think of SVD as a categorization prior to a prediction.

Of course this could produce a type prediction, 2^x categories with choices that would indicate one type or a contratype(i.e the conflictor).

This is a common techniques in information analysis, and is used in many schools of application, any number of systems will generate 2^x categories for prediction. Including choosing what sort of advertising to display, whether or not something is a security threat or whether or not you would like a movie. I would like to do something like this for socionics, but this is the sort of thing that takes thousands upon thousands of hours of work to implement.

This isn't really anything that is related to this thread. So I will move it.

I have also thought of a methodology for type prediction which would be wholly empirically constructed, but it would require some level of statistical analysis which I am incapable of . It's based on the construction of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which was developed empirically due to issues where a questions designed to test for certain traits in practice elicited the wrong response (e.g. paranoid people were actually more like to answer "false" to the statement "I think most people would lie to get ahead" than a normal population). So it doesn't actually matter whether the statement is true or not, the only thing taken into account is what answer a specific group are more likely to put down.

Essentially it will be a questionnaire with lots (100-300) of seemingly arbitrary questions which don't appear to point to a specific type or dichotomy (Do you prefer red or blue? Do you consider yourself a good driver?) but are statistically correlated to a type (along the lines of Aquagraph's "everything is type related to some degree" thread).

The main advantage of this test is that it controls for confirmatory bias, which in my opinion is the main problem with current typing tests - if you have a reasonable grasp of the basics of socionics, you can easily guess the answers which would type you as whatever type you want to be. But with this test, the only way to "cheat" is if you know the statistical correlations of each random question to type. It would also control for exaggeration problems (e.g. IEIs responding to stereotype threat by answering "I am bloody awesome at sports thankyou very much! Intuitives can be good at sports too! I have trophies!" )

The obvious problem with this test is constructing it - you would need a large and diverse population of people who are reliably typed to fill out massive questionnaires, then sort through all the questions to find the ones that are actually statistically significant, and analysing the hell out of a lot of data. But the construction process would actually be quite interesting since you'll actually end up with definitive and quantitative answers to "Is It Type-Related?".

Originally Posted by Agee The Great

Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

I have also thought of a methodology for type prediction which would be wholly empirically constructed, but it would require some level of statistical analysis which I am incapable of . It's based on the construction of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which was developed empirically due to issues where a questions designed to test for certain traits in practice elicited the wrong response (e.g. paranoid people were actually more like to answer "false" to the statement "I think most people would lie to get ahead" than a normal population). So it doesn't actually matter whether the statement is true or not, the only thing taken into account is what answer a specific group are more likely to put down.

Essentially it will be a questionnaire with lots (100-300) of seemingly arbitrary questions which don't appear to point to a specific type or dichotomy (Do you prefer red or blue? Do you consider yourself a good driver?) but are statistically correlated to a type (along the lines of Aquagraph's "everything is type related to some degree" thread).

The main advantage of this test is that it controls for confirmatory bias, which in my opinion is the main problem with current typing tests - if you have a reasonable grasp of the basics of socionics, you can easily guess the answers which would type you as whatever type you want to be. But with this test, the only way to "cheat" is if you know the statistical correlations of each random question to type. It would also control for exaggeration problems (e.g. IEIs responding to stereotype threat by answering "I am bloody awesome at sports thankyou very much! Intuitives can be good at sports too! I have trophies!" )

The obvious problem with this test is constructing it - you would need a large and diverse population of people who are reliably typed to fill out massive questionnaires, then sort through all the questions to find the ones that are actually statistically significant, and analysing the hell out of a lot of data. But the construction process would actually be quite interesting since you'll actually end up with definitive and quantitative answers to "Is It Type-Related?".

This propose methodology is similar to SVD analysis, except SVD analysis determines the statistically correlated choices(figures out what question/data is related and what it's related to) based on a working data set and a predicted result data set(which is known but not analyzed). It could take normalized data from any stream of information, writing, movie rating, +1 on a webpage or a like to a friend's status comment. It takes these seeming non-related events and uses it to generate a prediction on the kind of data that would later possibly be liked or +1 or written. This mechanism creates the correlations and then associate the correlations with a category and then makes a prediction based on that. I think the predictive mechanism may only be so accurate(but better then guessing and often highly accurate), but the association of the correlations with a category could produce a sociotype prediction.

How to tune this to determine sociotype is not something that's I'm sure of, it might also include too much NTR related information. It could be that only certain predictions can be looked at for type related data, like duration of close relationship with another person being analyzed, etc.

I think there should be more in the distinctions of archetype versus conditional behavior. But what may be more archetypal for one person, may be conditional behavior for another. This way socionics can attempt focus on what is more relevant for a person.

For instance, I've always been very introverted. I consider my self intrinsically introverted - archetypal really. But some other people won't necessarily feel they are extroverted or introverted intrinsically, might legitimately waver. And some might find that they pretty much have to live as an extrovert in everything they do - archetypal for them.

It would be kind of cool this way because then you can find statistical correlations to what types a person can or will be depending on the situation. It wouldn't throw out any of the theory either, but make it more broad in a more intellectually honest manner. I don't have any recommendations on how to do that at the moment, but I wanted to share this perspective at least.

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

As a matter of fact, I don't. There aren't many people in real life that I actually want to type just to see whether we're compatible. I mean those are fleeting and fragmentary to begin with as in passing - you see them once or maybe twice. I say 'blah', that person says 'blah' and it is over. No love lost.

People who stayed with me and vice versa, well, that's something else. I've been here for over 3 yrs, on this forum, and to be honest I didn't even think in terms of typology. I usually know whom I get along with and most importantly whom with not, so I might say those are in my quadra, the ones I get along with fine, of course.

Ye sure, I can type them but do not put much stock into it, I just enjoy it, the interaction. As for typing itself, I pay attention to what they say to each other. Things they do.

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

When I did type, it was usually done as an after thought.
Preferably I interacted w the person, or came across them interacting with others. Over time, some things they do/say started showing up regularly in a variety of contexts. Over still more time it might happen enough times that it would suddenly link up in my mind as a good example of some portion of socionics hypothesis. What that portion is depends on what that part of the person that kept showing itself was. I usually didn't get a full blown type from this.

When it came to family and long-term friends, I typed by looking back over the years to see what may have consistently shown up. I would also talk with my friend/bro who was into socionics and who knew the people being typed. We'd share and compare thoughts.

When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.

I see no problem with saying PeJi vs PiJe, or ExFx, or any other portional typing. I'd rather see this than quick judgments over misinterpretations (of person and/or of socionics portions).

When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.

You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

Thanks, I really appreciate the insight.

Glad I said something useful.

I would suggest though to try to view the conflicts/disagreements as if from a third person perspective...as if watching a movie or two friends going at it. This helps to look at the conflict itself and not something as vague as 'conflictor relations'. It also removes any bias one may have regarding one's type. In this way, the conflct might support a self-typing, or it might open the mind up to a possible alternative typing. (but that could just be me not settling on a judgment call easily, heh)

I don' even think I'm fully aware of it when I do it but it usually starts with observing the person with their movements, posture, facial expression and comparing the sum of that to others I've previously observed. Then it goes to what they talk about and how they talk about whatever it is, what they respond favorably or unfavorably towards, what people they get along with and choose to spend time with, what makes them mad or incites criticism and how they critique.

It's really not a neat or complicated process. I figured out pretty quickly someone was Alpha irrational. The Ti/Fe valuing was obvious. He would point out errors in thought and statements due to their logical inconsistencies and make fun of the skewed logic by applying that logic to other scenarios and make the person who said something moderately stupid to look really dumb. He was very receptive to quirky but light feel good entertainment and creature comforts and would not tolerate anything overly dry or anything dealing with deep feelings, especially that of the negative sort. I have this guy down as ILE (after extensive exposure in different situations with various individuals) but I went between SEI and ILE for a while until I felt it was more obvious where his strengths lied and when I figured the extent of discomfort Fi caused him.

My relations with him were where I began to say little in anticipation of him finding fault with my illogical statements and my talk of likes and dislikes and personal relations being a source of offense (I was told in early stages of our relationship that he didn't care about my likes or dislikes after I thoughtlessly stated something that delved into that area and I saw similar rejection with some choice of entertainment of mine and with statements made from various ESIs and when we had Fi talk time which almost did not go very well).

Anyways, that's one example with someone who is more obviously intolerant of Fi/Te in particular versus being descriptive of an individual who is more inclined to be more accepting of non-valued IMs, if that makes sense. Typing became easier when I noticed types within a type that share more obvious similarities than other 'types in a type' that are of the same type, technically, but fall into some subtype (I'm not talking about rational or irrational subtypes but different categories altogether that are subjective to my own perceptions of individuals in context of typology).

I then didn't fall into bewilderment when observing ILE A and ILE B and wondering why they were displaying such different surface behavior but displaying acute understanding of one another's thought processes as if they were their own.